Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Treatments in Santa Monica ITE 2012 Western District Annual Meeting...

Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Treatments in Santa Monica

ITE 2012 Western District Annual MeetingSession 8CWednesday June 27, 2012

Sam Morrissey, P.E.City Traffic EngineerCity of Santa Monica

Introduction

2

Introduction (Cont’d)

3

Introduction (Cont’d)

4

Introduction (Cont’d)

5

Background

July 2008

September 2008

December 2010

6

City Request to Experiment

7

Evaluation Locations

In-Roadway Warning Light Systems• Santa Monica Boulevard/Princeton Street• Pico Boulevard/3rd Street• Pico Boulevard/10th Street• 2114 Colorado Avenue (Midblock crosswalk)

8

Evaluation Locations (Cont’d)

Flashing Beacon SystemsSanta Monica Boulevard/Princeton Street• 2 lanes ea. dir.• Center TWLTL• Spd. Lmt. 30 mph• 85th %tile ~32 mph• 28,000 ADT

9

Evaluation Locations (Cont’d)

Flashing Beacon SystemsSanta Monica Boulevard/Stanford Street • 2 lanes ea. dir.• Center TWLTL• Spd. Lmt. 30 mph• 85th %tile ~32 mph• 28,000 ADT

10

Deployment

2114 Colorado Avenue (Midblock crosswalk)

11

Deployment (Cont’d)

Pico Boulevard/10th Street

12

Deployment (Cont’d)

Pico Boulevard/3rd Street

13

Deployment (Cont’d)

Santa Monica Boulevard/Princeton Street

14

Deployment (Cont’d)

Santa Monica Boulevard/Princeton Street

15

Deployment (Cont’d)

Santa Monica Boulevard/Stanford Street

16

Evaluation

17

In-Roadway Warning Lights – Daytime

Evaluation (Cont’d)

18

In-Roadway Warning Lights – Summary

Location: Santa

Monica/Princeton Pico/3rd Pico/10th Colorado Midblock

Device: IRWL IRWL IRWL IRWL Time of Day

State of Operation

Yielding Response (Approx.)

AM Off 91% 95% 86% 85% On 86% 88% 86% 95%

Change -5% -7% 0% +10% Dusk Off 77% 62% 81% 75% On 91% 100% 100% 77%

Change +14% +38% +19% +2% Night Off 45% 95% 81% 27% On 95% 95% 95% 73%

Change +50% 0% +14% +46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Perc

ent D

river

s th

at Y

ield

ed to

Ped

estr

ian

Average Distance Brake Lights Were Observed (feet)

Data Comparison for Study AM Session (9-11AM) Average

Santa Monica/Princeton - ON (RRFB)

Santa Monica/Princeton - OFF

Santa Monica/Stanford - ON (CRFB)

Santa Monica/Stanford - OFF

Evaluation (Cont’d)

19

Flashing Beacons – Daytime

Evaluation (Cont’d)

20

Flashing Beacons – Summary

Location: Santa Monica/Princeton

Santa Monica/Stanford

Device: RRFB CRFB Time of Day

State of Operation

Yielding Response (Approx.)

AM Off 65% 85% On 80% 90% Change +15% +5%

Midday Off 70% 90% On 90% 95% Change +20% +5%

PM Off 85% 75% On 85% 90% Change 0% +15%

Dusk Off 85% 75% On 80% 100% Change -5% +25%

Night Off 60% 80% On 95% 90% Change +35% +10%

Comparisons

1. Generally, both systems increase driver yielding response rates

2. The RRFB seems to result in a greater increase in driver yielding response than the CRFB

3. Compared to IRWL systems, both systems appear to be as effective as IRWL systems

21

Next Steps

• City’s experiment still ongoing

• Continue through 2013• Periodic updates to

CTCDC & FHWA• Alternate locations of

C/RRFBs• Investigate “human

factors”• Testing other devices

22

Questions?

Sam MorrisseyCity Traffic EngineerCity of Santa Monica1685 Main Street, Room 115Santa Monica, CA 90401T: 310.458.8955sam.morrissey@smgov.net

Steve WeinbergerW-Trans490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201Santa Rosa, CA 95401T: 707.542.9500sweinberger@w-trans.com

23